Memory Limitations of 32bit vs 64bit 3

[1DMF]

Hi,

Please can someone confirm if the 32bit version of SBS2K8 is still limited to only handling 4GB of memory.

This is what my reseller has indicated, which means it's as limited as SBS2003 and kinda makes the upgrade pointless.

Yet the 64bit version seems to be able to handle 192GB, however, we have software that might not be able to run on 64bit.

Is there really this massive limitation with the 32bit version of SBS?

Thanks,

1DMF

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[1DMF]

It's OK, found what I needed.

http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/system-requirements.aspx

The reseller was getting confused over the SBS2k8 and the win2k8 standard edition that comes bundled with SBS2k8 premium

seems the 32bit SBS2k8 goes up to 32GB.

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[biglebowski]

There isn't a 32bit version of SBS 2008. It has to be 64bit because of exch 2007.

"Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary, and you can probably get a career in it.
Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

 

[1DMF]

Really? so what about applications that won't run under x64, does it have a x86 programs folder and run them in 32bit layer?

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[biglebowski]

I think you are missing the point here.

SBS 2008 uses Server 2008 64 bit it does not have a 32 bit O/S available.

Yes 64bit platforms are capable of running 32bit apps but that does mean it is a 32 bit O/S.

"Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary, and you can probably get a career in it.
Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

 

[1DMF]

I think you are missing the point here.

nope not at all. You are missing the point.

I need to know if it is x64 (i don't care either way), that our sage accounts will still run on it and as Sage is a lame piece of crap that comes from the days of DOS, it is quite acceptable for me to have concerns over compatability.

Especially as the company won't pay for sage cover!

Yes 64bit platforms are capable of running 32bit apps but that does mean it is a 32 bit O/S.

sorry that sentence doesn't make any sense to me.

Anyway do you really beleive that any current x64 OS is truely x64, because I don't. even Java (Sun) and Flash (Adobe) aren't capable of writing x64 plugins for IEx64 and i've been running IE x64 for nearly 4 years!!!!

one day we might have a true x64 OS, but while it's got to have a load of crappy code to either emulate x86 or crappy code to emulate x64 when it's realy x86, then we are no where near yet!





"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[biglebowski]

Yep sorry, after re-reading your reply I understand what you are saying. I read it as a sarcastic comment rather than a question (must be in a confrontational mood today)

Yes it has an (x86) program files folder and runs them in 32 bit. Our SBS 2008 is running our AV and shadowprotect in 32 bit.

"Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary, and you can probably get a career in it.
Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

 

[1DMF]

No probs, we all have them days!

The biggest problem I now face is SBS2K8 Premium requires 2 servers unlike the 1 for SBS2K3, making the upgrade far more expensive!



"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[biglebowski]

We didn't have a requirement for premium so we have gone for a standard single server. The supplier did tell us they are installing premium on a single server though.

Single server running windows server 2008. Now install SQL2008 and Hyper-v and then install SBS 2008 in a virtual machine in Hyper-v

"Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary, and you can probably get a career in it.
Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

 

[1DMF]

My reseller did tell me about VMWare and virtulisation, so could still be able to run on one box.

However, there are VMWare costs to consider, and what support any free software may not have.

Plus there is training implications, I can't stake the companies single production server on moving to an untried, untested, non-skilled personell environment!

Is all that really worth it when you still get better performance having a two server set up, at @ £1,500 extra?

OK there is alway the 2k3 - 2k8 training issue either way, but at least i'm more familiar with a standard hardware install environment.

Plus we already have interest in our old kit from an associated company, which should help offset the extra server costs.

The real kicker is having to repurchase user CALs for SBS2K8 that's putting a grand straight on the price!

Bend over lads, here comes Microsoft!





"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[PaulGillespie]

ha ha, I hate sage! for the last little while I have only been putting the sage data on the server and pointing the clients to it. i won't install sage apps on the server directly anymore.

 

[1DMF]

ha ha, I hate sage! for the last little while I have only been putting the sage data on the server and pointing the clients to it. i won't install sage apps on the server directly anymore.

hmm, when I rung sage , support walked me through intalling it on the server and then running the netsetup program on eatch client.

Was this wrong of them? we don't have sage cover anymore so can't contact them to confirm alternate methods of running it.

It's not like the server ever actually opens sage, it's not running it as an app server.

Dunno, guess i'll have to worry about things if I find it don't work when we get our new server.

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[PaulGillespie]

The "net setup" bit was the only reason to install it on the server. net setup is now nolonger used by sage, you have to install off the CD for every machine.

My main gripe with having Sage installed on the server is when it comes to upgrades. When you follow the upgrade instructions it leaves the old sage files there and in add/remove programs, so after a few years, you get a whole load of sage installs showing on the server and it gets messy. anyway...rant finished. you'll be fine with your plan.

 

[ShackDaddy]

Guys, HyperV Core is free. So you could buy SBS2k8 Premium, just install HyperV Core on your hardware and virtualize two different servers, one being your SBS2k8 server and the other your additional server that you get with Premium.

You could do that without paying for anything more than your single set of server hardware and SBS2k8 Premium. There are quite a few guys in the SMB space doing just that, so it's not that crazy an idea. But you do have to have a basic understanding of how to use HyperV.

Why exactly do you need Premium?

If your hardware is robust enough, there's not necessarily an advantage to running two servers instead of one, and since a 64-bit OS can use so much memory, you can really supply plenty of RAM to any VM.

Dave Shackelford MVP
ThirdTier.net

 

[PaulGillespie]

Dave, I agree, but my only gripes with that solution is that the built in fax cannot be used (can't add a modem to the vritual SBS, i don't think) and neither can the builtin backup solution. The builtin backup wants to use USB drives.

I've never tried SBS on a hyper visor, just a plain 2008 with hyper V role installed. If i'm wrong, let me know.

Cheers

 

[ShackDaddy]

You're right. Most people who implement the scheme I outlined use an outside service like eFax and also use ShadowProtect for all their backups.

Dave Shackelford MVP
ThirdTier.net

 

[1DMF]

Why exactly do you need Premium?

Because it's the version that gives you SQL Server.

The cost of an extra box when you look at the overall performance benefits to me out weigh training costs and concerns over placing everything on one box and in an unfamiliar environment.

Dunno is a dual quad core and 12gb of ram in one box running hyper-v out perform two boxes each with a quad core and 6gb of ram where only SQL is on one and the rest of SBS on the other?



"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[ShackDaddy]

Why not skip virtualization and simply provide the server plenty of ram and install SQL on the SBS box? I don't see a problem with that, and it solves the complexity and hardware costs problem.

Dave Shackelford MVP
ThirdTier.net

 

[1DMF]

Why not skip virtualization and simply provide the server plenty of ram and install SQL on the SBS box? I don't see a problem with that, and it solves the complexity and hardware costs problem.

Because Microsoft no longer recommend running everything on one box in an SBS environment and state preferred use is having SQL on a separate box, which is why you also get Windows 2K8 Standard thrown as well as the SBS OS.

It does mean SBS runs x64 for Exchange and the SQL box is running x86, but the added bonus is if the SBS goes down or has issues , as the SQL is now on a separate box, the members extranet will no longer go down in the process!!!

I personally think 2 grand for another box is worth it just for the system resilience it brings not to mention a theoretical increase in performance.

Especially as MS have said although you can run it all on one box; non-virtualised, expect significant performance issue with SQL!



"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[PaulGillespie]

If you want resiliance then your SQL box will have to have AD and DNS too, does MS recomend AD and SQL on the same box?

SQL isn't my strong subject but I know that they don't recommend AD and exchange on the same box(except on SBS!), not sure if SQL is the same...